Policy change will affect as many as 800,000 immigrants who have lived in fear of deportation

Your browser does not support inline frames or is currently configured not to display inline frames. Content can be viewed at actual source page: http://youtu.be/ignSA_fDQfA

Above: President Obama announced a new immigration policy today that will stop the deportation of illegal immigrants under the age of 31 who were brought here before they turned 16 and have lived in the country for at least five years. It's estimated the policy will affect 800,000 people who came to the U.S. as children. Nidya Ramirez is one of them. The Escondido woman's parents brought her here when she was two. She's now a 25-year-old graduate student at San Diego State University. She talked with KPBS Fronteras reporter Adrian Florido after the president's announcement on Friday, June 15, 2012. (Video by Katie Euphrat)

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama eased enforcement of immigration laws Friday, offering a chance for hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants to stay in the country and work. Immediately embraced by Hispanics, the extraordinary step touched off an election-year confrontation with congressional Republicans.

Above: President Barack Obama delivers the State of the Union address in the House Chamber at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C., Jan. 24, 2012.

"Let's be clear, this is not amnesty, this is not immunity, this is not a path to citizenship, this is not a permanent fix," Obama said from the White House Rose Garden. "This is the right thing to do."

The policy change will affect as many as 800,000 immigrants who have lived in fear of deportation. It bypasses Congress and partially achieves the goals of the "DREAM Act," congressional legislation that would establish a path toward citizenship for young people who came to the United States illegally but who attend college or join the military.

Under the administration plan, illegal immigrants will be immune from deportation if they were brought to the United States before they turned 16 and are younger than 30, have been in the country for at least five continuous years, have no criminal history, graduated from a U.S. high school or earned a GED or served in the military. They also can apply for a work permit that will be good for two years with no limits on how many times it can be renewed.

Obama said the change would become effective immediately to "lift the shadow of deportation from these young people."

Immigrant-rights activists in San Diego and around Southern California hailed today's announcement.

"These young people are our future lawyers, doctors and teachers, and they come from working families,'' said Christian Ramirez of the San Diego Immigrant Rights Consortium and San Diego Equality Alliance.

Sandra Diaz, a coordinator with a union that represents mostly Spanish-speaking janitors in San Diego, praised Obama's decision.

"We need a recognition of the contributions immigrants give to this country,'' said Diaz, of the Service Employees International Union, United Service Workers West.

San Diego Labor Council Secretary-Treasurer and CEO Lorena Gonzalez released a statement calling the announcement "an encouraging step in beginning to address our nation’s dire need for comprehensive immigration reform."

“Working families in San Diego applaud the Obama Administration’s announcement to provide relief from deportation to immigrant young adults brought to this country by their parents at an early age," she said. "These are some of San Diego's best and brightest, and the President’s actions allow them to finally live without fear of separation from their families and deportation to a country they barely remember. This talented group of young Americans was educated here and has been working to build a better community for all of us.

But in a statement, Congressman Brian Bilbray said he was "extremely disappointed" in what he called the "backdoor amnesty policy."

“The timing of this announcement is politically motivated and the policy is possibly in violation of the law," Bilbray said. "How can we expect anyone visiting our country to respect our laws when the administration is unwilling to enforce or chooses to ignore them? This mixed message will only encourage more illegal immigration and contribute to more deaths along the border.”

The move comes in an election year in which the Hispanic vote could be critical in swing states like Colorado, Nevada and Florida. While Obama enjoys support from a majority of Hispanic voters, Latino enthusiasm for the president has been tempered by the slow economic recovery, his inability to win congressional support for a broad overhaul of immigration laws and by his administration's aggressive deportation policy.

The step, to be carried out by the Department of Homeland Security, comes one week before Obama plans to address the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials' annual conference in Orlando, Fla. Republican presidential challenger Mitt Romney is to speak to the group on Thursday.

"This is an administrative action, so if Romney wins the presidential election, he could take it away," Yale Loehr said. "So people should be cautious before they move forward."

Opponents of the ruling say it’s an election year stunt to pander to Latino voters. Arizona Senator John McCain said it adds confusion and uncertainty to the country’s broken immigration system.

But Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano wrote in a memorandum describing the administration's action that, "many of these young people have already contributed to our country in significant ways."

"Prosecutorial discretion, which is used in so many other areas, is especially justified here," she wrote.

The policy closely tracks a proposal being drafted by Republican Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida, a potential vice presidential running mate for Romney, as an alternative to the DREAM Act, formally the Development, Relief and Education of Alien Minors Act.

"Today's announcement will be welcome news for many of these kids desperate for an answer, but it is a short-term answer to a long-term problem," Rubio said in a statement. "And by once again ignoring the Constitution and going around Congress, this short-term policy will make it harder to find a balanced and responsible long-term one."

The change drew a swift repudiation from Republican lawmakers, who accused Obama of circumventing Congress in an effort to boost his political standing and of favoring illegal immigrants over unemployed U.S. citizens.

"President Obama and his administration once again have put partisan politics and illegal immigrants ahead of the rule of law and the American people," Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas, GOP chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, said in a statement.

Republicans including Romney say they want tighter border security measures before they will consider changes in immigration law. Romney opposes offering legal status to illegal immigrants who attend college but has said he would do so for those who serve in the armed forces.

Praise for the new policy was also swift. Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois, the No. 2 Senate Democrat, called the decision "an historic humanitarian moment" and compared it to the decision two decades ago to give political asylum to Cuban refugees fleeing the communist island. "This is at least a reflection of that moment in history."

In New York, Mayor Michael Bloomberg said, "Ending deportations of innocent young people who have the potential to drive tomorrow's economy is long overdue, as are many commonsense reforms needed to center our immigration policy around our economic needs."

Midway through his remarks, Obama was interrupted by a reporter from a conservative online publication, Neil Munro of the Daily Caller, who shouted, "Why do you favor foreigners over American workers?" Clearly irritated, Obama said that he was explaining the policy, not looking for an argument, and that the change was the "right thing to do for the American people."

Napolitano said Friday the decision "is well within the framework of our existing laws."

"We should not forget that we are a nation of laws and a nation of immigrants," she said. "With respect to these young people, deferred action, the decision I announced today, is simply the right thing to do."

The Obama administration's deportation policies have come under fire, and Latino leaders have raised the subject in private meetings with the president. In 2011, Immigration and Customs Enforcement deported a record 396,906 people and is expected to deport about 400,000 this year.

A December poll by the Pew Hispanic Center showed that 59 percent of Latinos disapproved of the president's handling of deportations.

The administration announcement comes ahead of an expected Supreme Court decision on Arizona's tough 2010 immigration law that, among other things, requires police to ask for immigration papers from anyone they stop or arrest and suspect is in the country illegally. The Obama administration has challenged the law.

The exact details of how the program will work, including how much immigrants will have to pay to apply and what proof they will need, still are being worked out.

Administration officials stopped short of calling the change an administrative DREAM Act, but the qualifications track with those laid out in a 2010 version that failed in the Senate after passing in the House. They said comprehensive overhaul of the immigration system remained an administration priority.

Illegal immigrant children won't be eligible to apply for the deportation waiver until they turn 16, but officials said younger children won't be deported, either.

City News Service contributed to this report. (Video by Katie Euphrat)

How does this help the minor being torn from a parent or parents due to a deportation or the revocation of a VISA/passport? Candidate Obama said he would tackel comprehensive immigration reform by his second year in office. It hasn't happened. I see this more as a campaign ploy, knowing that he has alienated many Democrat and independent Latinos because of his deportation numbers, the lack of immigration reform, and maybe even his "same-sex marriage" bombshell. I think he is more honest about the latter than he is about this. Actions speak louder than.

I don't mind a 'serve and stay' policy. An Honorable Discharge should be a gateway to citizenship. Not sure about why a college degree would be on the list though, how does that demonstrate patriotism and acclimatization?

Mission, your bitterness towards marriage equality is our own opinion, and not reflected in the Latino community any more so than in other communities.

Whites, Blacks, Latinos - all groups have their religious zealots who favor discrimination, as well as their moderates who support marriage equality:

*According to an April report by the National Council of La Raza (NCLR), 54% of Hispanics support same-sex marriage, one point higher than the general population. These numbers are echoed by other polling.*

And mission, it's not as if Obama came out and repealed don't ask don't tell right away like he promised. He lagged on the issue for a long time.

I see your point about this being a campaign stunt, perhaps it is, but at least it's a step in the right direction. With the current political climate and the anti-immigrant sentiment being stirred up by the tea party, minutemen and others I'm surprised he is able to get even this done.

I agree we need much more, but it's going to take a fight on the scale of health care reform to accomplish wider change.

Political stunt? Has any politician in recent memory ever done anything that wasn't politically motivated? No. We've just become so indifferent to it because everything they do is politically motivated. Everything is calculated. Nothing is done purely because "it's the right thing to do." Am I being cycnical? No. I'm being realistic. I think it's naive and idealistic to believe that anyone we elect to any office is going to be selfless and not consider in great detail how their actions will impact their careers. If they were faced with a choice being "doing the right thing" or not, and the "doing the right thing" meant they could put their career in jeopardy, they're NOT going to do the right thing. We're supposed to live in a representative republic. We don't. We live in a system that's controlled by those who already have the power, those with enough money to influence government, and politicians willing to play that game. When only 20% - 30% of people vote in local elections it's proof the system is broken. People are apathetic and indifferent. I don't blame them. I still vote in every election, though. Although it becomes more difficult with every election.

Of course this is a political move! Where've you been. I think it's comical the way the GOP lashes out against President Obama when they've been doing the same thing. That's call politics.

I don't blame the teenagers here illegally because of their parents' decision to break our immigration laws by bringing them here when they were mere children instead of applying for legal visas. Instead of amnesty (temporary or not), the question should also be raised about pressuring foreign governments to clean up their act and gain the faith of their people so they aren't compelled to leave their native country in search of a better life. This has been going on for decades and generations of people have suffered.

I support immigration reform, but not amnesty. If you're here illegally then you broke the law and should not be rewarded with US citizenship. Still, I understand, as do many, the complexities of deportation. I don't believe the separation of families is an argument either. People here illegally chose to leave their families in their native countries (grandparents, cousins, uncles, aunts, etc), and I don't hear anyone crying for them. We can't obviously deport 12 million illegal immigrants either. But giving amnesty will undoubtedly tell the world to come to the US any which way you can and you'll get citizenship. That would be disastrous. Look at England and France's over-immigration problems.

So what's the answer? I certainly don't want to deport anyone and I certainly don't want to give amnesty.

If any of you have the answer please take it to the footsteps of the White House. But you'd better know what you're talking about because I haven't read any answers that tell me any of us have the answer yet, including me.

"Bilbray said. "How can we expect anyone visiting our country to respect our laws when the administration is unwilling to enforce or chooses to ignore them? This mixed message will only encourage more illegal immigration and contribute to more deaths along the border.”

Would Brian "You can tell an illegal by the clothes they wear" Bilgebray have said the same about the ICRA under St. Ronnie?

David, one of the biggest myths is that ALL undocumented aliens come to "settle" in the US. Studies since the late 70s by Wayne Cornelius and Michael Piore up to the present by Douglas Massey have proven that a high percentage of clandestine border crossers have no intention of remaining in the USA.

The European dynamic with their immigrants is totally different as France has close historical and cultural ties to the Mahgreb and Britain with Nigeria and East Africa.

MA, I fail to see the relevance of the intention to stay or not. If there are ~12M here illegally at present does it really matter if they are the same ~12M as last year or if some percentage of them swapped? If they did in fact not come to settle, doesn't that make the case for deportation even stronger?

Mr. Rooney2, you may want your tax money going to deporting young men and women who were brought here as children and have remained law abiding, but I don't want mine being used for such nonsense.

Can you really not see the difference between someone brought here as a kid who has completely assimilated to our society and served our country or gone to college and someone who crossed illegally as an adult to run a drug smuggling ring?

Your all or nothing attitude is nothing but hysterics.

And rubbish to you crying "unconstitutional".

District Attorneys in every part of our country have to make decisions based on factors such as resources, severity of crime, public safety, etc. regarding whether or not to prosecute, there's nothing "unconstitutional" about it!

In case you haven't noticed, our infrastructure is crumbling and we re rapidly falling behind the rest of the world in several key education and morbidity and mortality statistics. We don't have unlimited funds for deportation, and focusing on the worst cases is not only the HUMANE thing to do (as I'm sure tht doesn't matter much to you) but it's also the most financially appropriate option.

Here is an idea that both MA and Duck should love... Let all the immigrants stay and be citizens, BUT, only on the condition that they become gay (Since I'm sure it's a choice, right? Like choosing to move here illegally?) The we can legalize gay marriage and they can all get married. They won't have any children because they're gay now so the lower income programs won't be impacted by a large increase in demands. Eventually, they will die off without replacing themselves and it will be like they were never here.

There, solved all the problems. America is safe. Each one of you wins one and looses one. Even-Steven.

Why cant immigration reform AND gay rights be a good thing? Even if your sick and tired of hearing about it?

Sorry duck, I re-read posts. Since you and MA banter I had your name on my mind. I meant to refer to MA's apparent intolerance for homosexual civil rights and BobRooney2's, well, general hate'n on Obama. Reading and typing too fast.

You post a lot and I generally agree with you on most issues. And I guess we agree on this one too. I'm not an immigrant, my parents were. So although I did not have to experience directly the discrimination my parents did for having an accent, (even from my childhood friends), I know from close observation what they went through. I also know they did it to give me a better life. I am a citizen, born here, Chicago to be exact. But I wonder, is it really that important to be a citizen? I have friends that live in Mexico and France who are not citizens. They are content being legally part of society, as they are.

Is it enough to be able to partake from the opportunities that the US offers with a work permit and not be a citizen? Maybe an immigrant should answer that.

You say there is nothing unconstitutional about illegal immigration and cite DA's who decide not to prosecute due to resources, public safety, and severity of crime? >>>CRIME!<<<

Just because the US justice system is in such a poor state that it must decide which criminals to prosecute and which to turn a blind eye to does not absolve them of their crime! They just won't be punished.

SHAME ON OBAMA for circumventing the Constitution, Congress, and our judicial system. There is no reasoned argument to support his actions!

CD, there are reasoned actions. You may not like the reasons. I don't support them all either, but they are there. I have a tough time imagining myself looking a vet from an all volunteer force in the eye and saying. 'Your parents brought you here illegally, thanks for your service, but get out."I don’t see the reason for including college students, but somebody thinks it’s a good idea (I’d actually like an explanation on that one). Some transgressions can be overcome with disciplined service, or so I believe.

I don't favor most of O's policies any more than you do. I think most of his goals are more Socialist/Keynesian than Capitalist/Hayekian, but he does reason. He’s just got the fundamentals the wrong way around. In this particular instance, it’s a decent decision with a few warts attached. Move on to the real problems he’s not solving if you want to criticize.

REALLY 123, your post is silly. But just for your info, I voted FOR Prop 8 and have locked horns (did I say that?) rather, butted heads with the Duck over so-called LGBT issues. What I see as a private/personal matter, the Duck sees as a poltical one to be imposed on society at large.

So you are both wrong. The Duck for being on one extreme and you for being on the other, Really.

MA, how doe A14 apply here? This text from section 1 "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

requires either birth citizenship or naturalization, neither of which is held by the persons mentioned in this policy (or if I'm in error, please point it out).

"Asians now make up the largest number of new immigrant arrivals, bypassing Latinos, and place higher value on marriage, parenthood and hard work than any other group in America, according to a new study released by the Pew Research Center." -- Elizabeth Aguilera, UT

Funny that you only decry my mention of Obama circumventing the Constitution and not Congress or the judicial system. I guess the latter two are just annoying flies to you and Obama.

You brought up the 14th amendment which has NOTHING to do with this debate, but I always enjoy discussing it.

In short, the 14th amendment doesn't need to be abolished because it was never legally ratified. It has been accepted only as dogma by the passage of time, not on any legal basis. Like a squatter acquiring land via adverse possession.

I disagree with enlisting non-citizens in the first place. It is nothing more than the creation of a foreign legion from places you have colonized which is no longer an American value...well at least it shouldn't be but seems to persist under the guise of liberation.

CD, I fail to see how we have colonized Mexico (or attempted to liberate it). Additionally, while we have separate branches of armed forces we do not further subdivide by place of origin. We do not, for instance, have a Honduran Regiment or a ship entirely crewed by Vietnamese. Please explain your point further, I have obviously misunderstood what you intended to say.

These comment boards lose a lot when people start arguing in the abstract. Colonizing?!?! Foreign Legions?!?! Please.

Explain something, CONCRETELY, to constituencies from South American nations. Why has illegal Cuban immigration been decriminalized and illegal immigration from Mexico, Honduras, Nicaragua, etc., has not?

Save us the blather about amendments and the Constitution, professor. As someone who has personal relationships with all types of South Americans, including Cubanos, I'm eager to hear your insights. Thanks.

Get serious. There's the Cuban Refugee Adjustment Act and the "Wet-Foot, Dry-Foot" policy. Anyone who knows anything about Latin American immigration will get a chuckle out of you asking for a "reference."

1. Immigrants didn't build this country, Settlers did. 2. For day to day survival, Immigrants have always been dependent on Settlers who provide the very means to survive.3. Present immigrants don't aspire to Settler-class whatsoever, they want the Settlers OUT of what they believe is their territory while their plundering of our national wealth will somehow remain unaffected! 4. Desperately, Obama is doing his best to secure the illegal votes of these foreign citizen-pirates for his re-election.5.Their anti-American motivation can't blemish his Ego or his royal retirement, so why would he recognize facts which would destroy his propaganda?

Do you mean like Colonists and Native American Indians? Have you ever wondered why cities and counties in California have Spanish names? Have you ever wondered what Indians called those places before that? Get serious.

BENZ 72 says: "I fail to see the relevance of the intention to stay or not. If there are ~12M here illegally at present does it really matter if they are the same ~12M as last year or if some percentage of them swapped? If they did in fact not come to settle, doesn't that make the case for deportation even stronger? "

"Some 3.5 to 5.5 million undocumented migrants may be living and working within the borders of the US." Elsa Chaney quoted in Brown & Shue, eds, BOUNDRIES (R & L, 1981) p 37

"A 14-member panel on immigration statistics of the NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES issued a report, "Immigration Statistics" A sTory of Neglect," June 1985, noting that all figures were "woefully inadequate" and favoring the LOW ESTIMATES of 2 to 4 million "illegals" actually residing in the US." -- James Cockcroft, OUTLAWS IN THE PROMISED LAND, (Grove Pr, 1986) p 137

Now look at again at the most common figure--12 million and consider that growth of the US population since the late 70s and mid 80s--that means the amount hasn't increased at all--rather dropped.

“BENZ 72, I just DID above. As long as your fellow Nativists push to repeal it, (they say it is anachronistic), it WILL be relevant in the discussion. Period.”

Oh, well since you ended your statement by spelling out “Period.” I clearly cannot continue to question you on which specific section of the 14th amendment you think applies to this case. For the rest of us who are confused about your position, here is a link to the full text of A14;

They do MA, but they do not incline me to ignore the prerequisites for legally entering, residing in or working in a country. What do the words ‘seasonal employment’ mean to you? And how do you get from ‘seasonal employment’ to unrestricted migration?

“Now look at again at the most common figure--12 million and consider that growth of the US population since the late 70s and mid 80s--that means the amount hasn't increased at all--rather dropped.”

MA

1)There is an important difference between an amount and a proportion.

2)Even considering that the ratio of illegal immigrants to legal residents may have declined, how would that argue in your favor in this case? If, for instance, I told you that although the total number of murders in a city rose, the per capita rate declined due to population increases therefore we shouldn’t concern ourselves with the crime would you be suspicious of my reasoning?

3) Please reference the statement you are discussing as it is difficult to follow your train of thought on this exchange.

BENZ: They do MA, but they do not incline me to ignore the prerequisites for legally entering, residing in or working in a country"

You misunderstand. My rebuttal to your point, is that NOT all come to settle permanently here, but only temporarily or seasonally. If you are unaware of the writings and studies by Cornelius, Piore, and Massey, then do you yourself a favor by familiarizing yourself with them. In fact, in southern Mexico there is even an informal word by residents that refers to these men who migrate back and forth like birds. Now, do "invaders" migrate back and forth, Benz? Hmm?

MA 1) I've never advocated repealing the 14th amendment, and it still doesn't apply here.

2) "Invaders" have not been part of this discussion until you brought them up. Pointing out that some of the illegal immigrants move back and forth across the border for seasonal labor fails to explain why they should be excepted from the laws regulating all immigrants. How is someone who comes temporarily and illegally not violating the work visa requirements?

3) Thank you for asking after my health, but I'm perfectly sober. Perhaps the lack of clarity is on the transmission end. Your argument intimated the amount of illegal immigrants had dropped since the 1970s. This is probably a futile question, but what makes you think the guesses from 4 decades ago are any more accurate than the guesses of today? Even if all the numbers are correct, why does it matter if we still have 12M problems?

For the sake of keeping this thread going, let's visit the example of Cubans. Illegal immigration doesn't exist for Cuban nationals as soon as their feet touch soil in the U.S. (dry-foot policy). People from other countries, South Americans in particular, wonder why illegal immigrants from their native countries can't be treated the same way.

At this point, it's only fair to distinguish between political asylum and economic opportunism. South Americans and the rest of the world are very aware of Washington's feelings towards Fidel Castro. However, there's a very good argument that the core issues driving all kinds of immigration overlap and/or are the same. What's fair? Disenfranchised Guatemalans and Chileans feel the same level of political oppression as do Cubans. Are we absolute (Mexicans)? Are we relative (Cubans)?

The political situation in Cuba justified our asylum policy at one time, but we're decades into an obviously failed strategy. (There's a lot to discuss about that, but that's best left for another time.) I wouldn't abandon any current policies regarding Cubans, but I'd like for our govt to apply a more even standard and at the very least try to explain immigration intricacies to our countrymen. Curiously enough, some of the most insightful comments I've heard about our immigration policies have been made by my friends in Cuba. They ask why we don't accept the reality of our hegemony and the responsibility that comes with it.

OK, sounds like a good discussion. I look forward to it. I do agree that there should be a policy that does not prefer one origin over another. Ability to integrate into and strengthen the US should be the primary consideration for our immigration policy.

You see we have Rightwingers like you, REALLY 123, Nativists who just happen to support "same-sex marrage." Apples and oranges, but your use of the term "intolerant" is completely hypocritical. I guess you are like the very grating LA DONA HARVEY, a Nativist who claims she is more left of center than people think. Why? Just because is for same-sex marriage.

You apparently, 123, are against civil rights for immigrants--gay or hetero--I suppose.

Example: KOGO's "Big Cow" Chip "on my shoulder" Franklin, a Nativist, opposes citizenship EVEN for legal residents who did a tour of duty in the military! Like him, there are many. Just check the local media websites.

MA, Despite your use of all caps I will continue to disagree with you on the applicability of that amendment until you point out in the text which section you think is relevant and explain the connection. 'Yes it is, no it isn't' gets us nowhere.

The idea that there are a number of different views with varying levels of support should not surprise any of us. I try not to assume that agreement with some of someone's view implies total support or allegiance.

'Sensitive' should not be, and as far as I can tell has never been, the goal of an immigration policy.

'Liberal' means so many different things to so many different people now that it doesn't work well as a label anymore. Even if it did, defining it as a fundamental principle of a policy may be of questionable value.

MA, you suppose wrong. Actually after your previous response to my ironic post, (your responded twice?), I actually accepted that we do not agree on gay rights. I realize that I'm not going to change your mind. That's OK. Poeple are not going to agree on everything and the world will not end if either gays don't get their rights now, or mexicans have a hard time becoming citizens. (NOT Latinos, I am personally uninterested in any other immigrant group)

On the issues we dissagree, I just hope that when it comes to elections there are more of me than of you. I'm not a liberal by the way, but also not a conservative. Labels can be tricky. I don't like to be told what to think.

Back to your first post, which I think poses some good questions, ripping families apart is not solved by this "policy". I agree that we want to keep productive youth in our country, maybe we need to give productive youth AND their parents work permits. That would keep families together.

Why are you not "interested" in any other group, Notreally123? We really (pun) missed your takethe YWCA Muslim women story.

This true about the labels. I'll give you an example. A journalist, Helen Aguirre, who works for UNIVISION Radio, is a staunch, very anti-Obama Republican, YET she rejects the the Nativist trend within her own party on that issue while remaining a political conservative on others. I very much doubt she is alone.

In all fairness to Benz, he's a thoughtful and obviously intelligent person. We've had a few exchanges in the past where he thought I was being too esoteric and I thought he was being too provocative. This KPBS comment board is a great thing because of people like you and him. Have a great day.

DLR, sorry if I offered an unintended provocation. Sometimes my requests for answers to questions I consider important could be better phrased. Please forgive me if I have offended.

MA, I'm not sure what you mean by picking and choosing, or why you would think that diminished credibility. I certainly won't claim to be error free, but I do put a fair bit of thought into these debates. Can you give an example of what you find so incredible?

If by now you cannot understand or are unwilling to (denial), nothing further I can write will make comprehend. If you want to keep pretending in your own mind that the US pop has not increased or increased very little since 1980 or 1975; and that the 14th Amendement doesn't apply to the current discussion even though hardcore Nativists/ethno-nationalists want to repeal it--then there's nothing I say/write to stop you.